1.5. Bases teóricas.
1.5.3. Generalidades De La Atención De Enfermería Postoperatoria
The Imagon is not a lens for beginners; it is also no lens for people whose guiding
principles are speed and convenience... Anyone who thinks he can simply go into a store, buy an Imagon and start taking good pictures is sadly mistaken. An Imagon is an
instrument possessing fine technical qualities and unless one is willing to study it patiently and quietly he had better stick to the next best anastigmat.1
Prof. Berthold Kihn (1936)
Soft focus lenses were never ubiquitous either amongst amateur art photographers or studio portrait professionals. Especially in the longer focal lengths their physical size required cameras with large lens boards and rigid front standards that could support their weight without tilting downward. These lenses required significant changes in technique when compared to standard practice and many amateurs lacked the time to experiment adequately to master the special soft focus techniques or simply lacked the patience; then as now, many probably failed to read the instructions which accompanied the lens and treated it as an anastigmat, a method guaranteed to produce low quality results and frustration. These were never the lenses for the masses. The very aberrations which imbued the images with such distinct character also complicated and constrained their use.
Unlike anastigmats, soft focus lenses demanded “extra caution and skill and indeed is the dealing with spherical aberration an issue of skillful delicacy - focusing, stopping down, exposure, development... Each new motif, each act of mood or of lighting has its own laws to be met with. Quite rightly so, and it does no harm that good and soft
1
Prof. Berthold Kihn, “Interesting Facts about the Imagon”The German Annual of Photography, 1937
imagery have the delight of rarity.”2These lenses were difficult to use precisely because
there were no absolutes as with sharp lenses.
John Paul Edwards (American 1883-1958) was an enthusiastic user of theVerito
soft focus lens for two decades before he became a member of the “Group f.64.” Along with Edward Weston, another “Group f.64” founder, both endorsed theVeritolens in
Wollensak promotional material.3Edwards was arguably the most talented soft focus
California photographer and wrote intelligently about their use:
Whichever make is purchased, learn it, stay by it, live with it, get acquainted with it. One's work should improve quite materially as he masters the capabilities of this artistic objective, and as acquaintanceship increases one will marvel at its versatility. Several workers could photograph the same object at the same time and from the same identical position and each get negatives quite different from the others through different focusing and lens apertures.4
There was universal agreement amongst experienced soft focus artists that “all lenses of this type want living with for a time and carefully and continually working until a result pleasing to the artist is obtained.”5There simply are too many nuances to soft focus that
could only be gleaned by actual experience; no amount of reading or imagining would substitute. Moreover, since “every soft-focus lens is, so to speak, a law unto itself, and the proper handling of any particular lens for this or that purpose or branch of work must be learned” by experience with that exact lens;6Coburn owned a lens for two years
2Kühn 1926, p. 66.
3Endorsement statement inVerito, the Lens that Improves on Acquaintance(Rochester: Wollensak Optical
Company, ca. 1913) unpaginated.
4John Paul Edwards “The Soft-Focus Lens”Camera CraftVol. XXI, No. 7, July, 1914, p. 315. This is
perhaps the finest article on soft focus ever written, pp. 313-322
5Edgar Clifton “The Lens in the Studio”BJPJune 9, 1911, p. 437. 6
Tennant, December, 1921, p. 171. This should be considered a companion piece to Edwards’ essay in
Camera Craft. Between them they have all of the important information on soft focus in the time period but realize that reading them is not a substitute for experience.
before he “discovered that it was the best one.”7Certain lenses were much more difficult
to use well than others, “some of these soft-focus lenses are only suited to the most advanced workers, as they are inclined to give entirely too much diffusion and a great amount of flare unless the subjects and lighting are very carefully selected and handled.”8
The syntax of photography consists of a system approach, considering the creation of an image as an additive system: lens, camera, film, darkroom and
photographer. To demonstrate why this is an additive or perhaps even geometric system, consider this situation: a poor quality lens, not well focused, hand-held at too long an exposure by a non-too stable photographer and the negative overdeveloped and printed too lightly. Each lack of optimization is amplified by subsequent error to produce an unusable negative. A decision at any point effects all subsequent actions. Each of the components also contains subsystems, not limited to:
Lens: hood, cleaning system, cable release, filters, shutter, aperture type, design Camera: tripod, viewing system, focus (may also possess a shutter built into the chassis), format
Film: grain size, light sensitivity, spectral sensitivity, inherent contrast, halation coating, sizes available
Darkroom: processing including developer, agitation, temperature, development method (time & temperature, inspection), printing method and paper type. As the final step, to some extent errors earlier in the system can be partly or totally corrected in the darkroom but this is sub-optimal technique.
7
Alvin Langdon Coburn “The Question of Diffusion”Semi-Achromatic Lenses(Boston: Pinkham & Smith Company, ca. 1911) unpaginated.
Photographer: physical size and strength, eye sight, experience, knowledge of conceivable choices, training of the eye, choice of subject, lighting, etc.
It must be remembered that the syntax of film changes greatly during the peak period of soft focus (1890-1920) and thus the performance of a lens is affected. The most important change was the common use of orthochromatic film (sensitive to green and blue), beginning in the 1890s, and the slow but eventual shift to adopt panchromatic films (sensitive to all colors but not necessarily equally so) mostly post-1910.9 In addition,
serious photographers, both amateur and professional, used glass plate negatives eschewing flexible film until well after 1910 in most cases; they rightly believed that glass plates were capable of producing a higher quality image. Anti-halation coatings made tremendous changes in how images with brilliant highlights were rendered, such as many Pictorial photographers often used as compositional devices in their photographs. The import is that advice on lens use is strongly dependent on the film to be exposed; advice that is applicable for a lens in 1905 may no longer be valid in 1920 and must be examined in detail if using modern color film.
The aesthetic ‘rules’ of diffusion change significantly from1890 through the 1930s. Almost without exception, there is a desire for greater ‘firmness,’ especially at the largest aperture, as time passes and as a result the lens designs became increasingly complex.10The resulting images from later lenses “are very different from those obtained
with the earlier semi-achromatic and anachromatic forms,”11although in the late 1940s
9As late as 1930,Das Deutsche Lichtbild Jahresschau 1931published an article on “The Practice of
Adopting Panchromatic Film,” clearly indicating the transition was far from complete.
10Two major soft focus lenses of the 1940s-1960s, the WollensakVeritarand the KodakPortrait, harken
back to the softer images of before World War I. The former is theVeritobought up to date with a coated lens and better glass; the Kodak is a coated modification of the Pinkham & SmithSemi-Achromatic.
and early 1950s, the trend reverses with the introduction of the KodakPortrait Lensand
the WollensakVeritar. It is worth noting that these two lenses were both designed for
professional studio use and not for amateurs (who did not take part in the soft focus lens revival); both were also designed for use with color film (i.e., they depended on spherical aberration without chromatic aberration for their softness) which had only recently been adopted by portrait photographers in America.
Figure 6.1: Spectral sensitivity comparisons of ordinary, orthochromatic and panchromatic films in 1930 (Clerc,Photography: Theory and Practice1930 p. 141)
Lenses
As the fashion for soft focus grew, the number of lenses and designs produced grew commensurately. Soft focus lenses before World War II can be placed in one of the following categories: 1) Single element, 2) Combination, 3) Doublet, 4) Variable separation of elements, 5) Internal floating element, 6) Symmetrical, and 7) Perforated diaphragm.
The single element lenses were premised on both Wollaston and Watzek’s researches and nearly always took a meniscus form, plano-convex and bi-convex having crucial shortcomings. Cheap to manufacture, they were difficult to use, “such a lens possessing all possible errors, and giving, as a result of its optical defects, a very soft quality of definition.”12 The chemical and visual focus did not coincide thus an
adjustment had to be made after the visual focus. Because a simple meniscus has significant chromatic aberration, the “soft quality” was exaggerated after panchromatic emulsions came into common use, unless, however, “a ray filter {yellow equivalent to a modern K-2} and color sensitive plates are used, the lens is rendered for all practical purposes completely achromatic and no correction need be made after focusing.”13
Regardless of the film’s spectral sensitivity, “lenses of the single series have from 50 to 60 per cent correction, and therefore show more halo around the lights than doublets of 75 per cent correction, so that they must be stopped down more to get rid of the flare or used in a duller light.”14 The StrussPictorialis the only significant lens of this type.15
Combination lenses with the configuration of two elements cemented together often took the form of an achromatic meniscus beginning with the French landscape lenses (ca. 1880) that influenced Henry Smith’s design of theSemi-Achromatic(1902)
and continue through the KodakPortrait Lens(discontinued in 1966). Others in this
highly successful category include the SpencerPort-Land, GundlachAchromatic
Meniscus,DallmeyerSoft-Focusand CookeRapid View and Portrait. Lightweight,
12Paul L. AndersonPictorial Photography, its principles and practice(Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott &
Company, 1917) p. 37.
13Frank R. Fraperie 4thed.How to Choose and Use a Lens(Boston: American Photographic Publishing
Co., 1925) p. 25. This advice holds true for all lenses with a high degree of chromatic aberration.
14
Fraperie 1925, p. 22.
compact and less expensive, these lenses were a solid choice for photographers working in the field. Furthermore, “the single lenses give more brilliant images, and are a practical necessity if night scenes are to be made which include bright lights in the field of view. On account of the smaller amount of glass through which light must pass to reach the plate, the single lenses are appreciably faster than the doublets at the same nominal aperture. In addition, with some makes additional glasses of different focal lengths may be obtained very reasonably, which interchange with the regular lens in the same barrel, affording all the advantages which a battery of lenses offers to the user.”16
Figure 6.2: KodakPortrait Lenscemented achromat manufactured from the late 1940s
until the early 1960s(Eastman Kodak CompanyCamera Technique for Professional
Photographersp. 16)
Doublet designs are normally convertible lenses, that is, the rear element may be used separately at approximately 50% longer focal length (the front element is unscrewed from the barrel and removed). The WollensakVeritomanufactured from 1911 until the
1960s (as theVeritarafter World War II) falls into this group. Measured by sheer
numbers, it was undoubtedly the most popular soft focus lens ever produced. TheBodine
was the first soft focus convertible lens and its design became theVerito. The Gundlach
Hyperion Diffusion(originally namedEqual Diffusion Portrait, 1921) had two cemented
two-element groups each of which could be used alone, thereby creating a triple convertible lens (one with three focal lengths).17
Doublets had significant advantages over the other lens forms. Possessing such a lens, the photographer had a choice of two focal lengths and a sharp or soft lens
(depending on the aperture chosen), a very versatile lens indeed. The three glass elements allowed for a reasonable correction for chromatic aberrations, allowing most of the diffusion to be attributable to spherical aberration, controllable by the photographer. “The doublets have an advantage over the single lenses in freedom from distortion, larger aperture, and greater covering power [large negative format for a given focal length]”18
all important gains, especially for architectural subjects. There were compromises, however: “they are much bulkier and heavier than single lenses of equivalent focal length, thus requiring a large lens board and a rigid camera front, especially in the larger sizes.”19Most, but not all doublets could be separated; some such as the Pinkham &
SmithVisual Qualitydid not have adequate corrections to use the cells individually.
17Neblette 1927, p. 107. 18
Tennant, December, 1921 p.167.
19
Tennant, December, 1921, p. 167. Nonetheless, they were lighter and more compact than the Petzval- type portrait lenses in common studio use at the time.
Figure 6.3:Veritar(andVerito)diagram, typical doublet design with a thin meniscus in front and an achromatic meniscus at rear which could be used alone (Portrait Veritar Lensa Wollensak instructional brochure circa 1955)
Variable separation lenses began with the 1866 DallmeyerPatent Portraitwhere
the entire lens barrel was rotated moving the front two elements away from the rear element. The “knuckle duster” on the CookePortrellic Series IIbperformed a similar
function by shifting the front elements away from the rear element; the BeckIsostigmar
Variable Portraitand the GrafVariablelenses also shifted the front element forward..
TheIsostigmar(1906) was a very complex soft focus lens with five elements in five
groups. Moving the front element gradually increases the aberrations, progressively softening the image in a manner that is less aperture dependent than other soft focus designs, which is a major advantage. It does, however, alter the effective focal length somewhat, making it necessary to re-compose the image. The degree of diffusion at f/5.6 when the lens was set to ‘sharp’ was significantly different in nature from the same aperture at the ‘soft’ setting. The GrafVariable(ca. 1915) was composed of four
symmetrical TheVariablelens was large, heavy and complex20but nonetheless rendered
excellent soft focus. It was Edward Weston’s second soft focus lens, after the Verito, having been introduced to it by his mistress, Margrethe Mather.
Figure 6.4: A dapper Edward Weston with a 14-16 inch GrafVariablelens on his 8x10
Korona“View” camera, photograph by Tina Modotti, ca. 1926 (camera and lens identifications by the author). Note that the lens just barely fits on that lens board. It is rather curious that he is holding the ground glass back for the camera (Sarah M. Lowe
Tina Modotti and Edward Weston the Mexican Yearsplate 14).
20
The Graf Optical Company instructional booklet (“How to be Happy with the Graf Variable Anastigmat”) for theVariableran 22 pages in length.
A second form of variable lens was based on Dallmeyer’s telephoto design and incorporated a single front element and a single rear element. Moving the relative positions of the lenses not only changed the degree of diffusion but also the equivalent focal length of the lens, thus requiring either moving the camera or recomposing the image. This design inherently has a high degree of chromatic aberration and became less desirable as panchromatic films were adopted by photographers. Two representatives of this group include the DallmeyerBergheimand some forms of the FrenchObjectif
d’Artiste Formule Anachromatiquedesigned by Constant Puyo and Leclerc de Pulligny
circa 1897. “The Bergheim lens gives a soft focus, not by confusing the rays of light like defective human eyesight, but by bringing the different colors of the spectrum to focus at different distances from the lens. Thus, when the blues and violets are clearly focussed, the reds and yellows are much out of focus. Take the case of a blond with freckles; the eyes would be clearly defined {blue}, and the hair massed together, and the freckles softened; the red lips would be thrown out of focus, and the tiny cracks and wrinkles on the lips, which are so troublesome, softened.”21
Figure 6.5: Diagram of the earliest version of the Dallmeyer-Bergheim lens. Note that the knob does not change the focus but varies the separation between the lens elements (W. Butcher & Sons Ltd.Camera House Price List 1914p.329)
Figure 6.6: Cutaway diagram of the Adjustable Landscape lens of Pulligny & Puyo; the knob varies the lens separation and changes the focal length (L. de Pulligny and C. Puyo
Objectifs d’Artiste1924 page 95).
The lenses of Puyo and Pulligny, because the visual and chemical focus did not coincide, could be difficult to focus reliably. Frederick Evans complained that “when that has to be guessed at by a final blind correction of focus to make up for lack of actinic correction, and the effect of which is not visible on the focussing screen - and that is the
real drawback to such otherwise fine instruments as the Bergheim and Pulligny lenses.”22
This was incorrect regarding the Puyo and Pulligny lenses, however, as they had devised an ingenious method of making the focus correction. The instructions for use are in their book of 192423as well as described by Robert Demachy in 1907: “a carefully calculated
scale will be engraved on the mount and the position of the stop after focussing will indicate automatically the number of millimetres that the lens has to be racked back.”24
See the photograph below for an example.
Figure 6.7: Engraved scale of focus correction on anObjectif Anachromatiqueof Puyo and Pulligny, 400mm f/5 lens made by Hermagis, Paris (Collection of the author)
Very few lens utilized a floating internal element (until 35mm format lenses in 1970s). TheUniversal Heliar25 represents one of the few lenses in this category. This
design was inherently more complicated mechanically and like the variable separation system, the focal length changed as the elements were moved from one position to another. Most lenses with variable separation or a floating element allowed the lens to be sharp at the maximum aperture, impossible with the other types of soft focus lenses.
22Frederick Evans “Art in Monochrome”The Amateur PhotographerFeb. 11, 1908, reprinted in
Hammond, 1992, p. 102.
23L. de Pulligny and C. PuyoObjectifs d’Artiste New Edition (Paris:Paul Montel, 1924) pp. 56-57. 24
Robert Demachy “The Pictorial Side in France”Photograms of the Year 1907(London: Dawburn &